Comments on: Guilty Verdict for Italian Earthquake Scientistshttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/guilty-verdict-for-italian-earthquake-scientists/
Your Daily Fix of Neuroscience, Skepticism, and Critical ThinkingSat, 01 Aug 2015 21:23:50 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1By: BillyJoe7http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/guilty-verdict-for-italian-earthquake-scientists/comment-page-2/#comment-46175
BillyJoe7Wed, 31 Oct 2012 03:35:04 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4964#comment-46175Apparently scientists and statisticians are not allowed to give practical take home messages.
If the public is confused about what they mean by their statements, it's just too bad.
In any case, I guess we'll have to wait for the judges explanation. Apparently it's going to take three months! Imagine that: the judge makes his decision and three months later he gives the reasons for his decision!
I'd love for you to explain that one, sonic. (;Apparently scientists and statisticians are not allowed to give practical take home messages.
If the public is confused about what they mean by their statements, it’s just too bad.

In any case, I guess we’ll have to wait for the judges explanation. Apparently it’s going to take three months! Imagine that: the judge makes his decision and three months later he gives the reasons for his decision!
I’d love for you to explain that one, sonic. (;

]]>By: sonichttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/guilty-verdict-for-italian-earthquake-scientists/comment-page-2/#comment-46167
sonicTue, 30 Oct 2012 23:30:15 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4964#comment-46167ConspicuousCarl-
I am assuming the newspaper account is accurate and that the judge in this case followed the law.
You are assuming otherwise.
As I said before- I am being an advocate in this case and I am advocating that what you are claiming is extraordinary and what I am claiming is what one would expect.
I have more evidence for my claim than you have presented for yours.
Exactly how do you justify believing the extraordinary claim without evidence in this case?
It seems the reasoning is rather motivated.
BillyJoe7-
If I paid a statistician to give me the best mathematical advice possible and he took the job as an expert and he said, "Throw away the ticket; " then yes, it seems he should be liable for giving me bad advice. Not because he is wrong in a particular case, but because he didn't give the best mathematical advice.
The courts would hear the case if he was wrong-- I have damages. They probably would not hear the case if he weren't wrong. 'No harm, no foul', is the reasoning, I believe.
But the person would be found guilty of not giving the advice he should have-- not for being wrong.
I believe that's how these things work.
In my perfect world there wouldn't be any courts or laws-- so what I think is reasonable is probably irrelevant about what is reasonable when it comes to the laws.ConspicuousCarl-
I am assuming the newspaper account is accurate and that the judge in this case followed the law.
You are assuming otherwise.
As I said before- I am being an advocate in this case and I am advocating that what you are claiming is extraordinary and what I am claiming is what one would expect.
I have more evidence for my claim than you have presented for yours.
Exactly how do you justify believing the extraordinary claim without evidence in this case?
It seems the reasoning is rather motivated.

BillyJoe7-
If I paid a statistician to give me the best mathematical advice possible and he took the job as an expert and he said, “Throw away the ticket; ” then yes, it seems he should be liable for giving me bad advice. Not because he is wrong in a particular case, but because he didn’t give the best mathematical advice.
The courts would hear the case if he was wrong– I have damages. They probably would not hear the case if he weren’t wrong. ‘No harm, no foul’, is the reasoning, I believe.
But the person would be found guilty of not giving the advice he should have– not for being wrong.

I believe that’s how these things work.
In my perfect world there wouldn’t be any courts or laws– so what I think is reasonable is probably irrelevant about what is reasonable when it comes to the laws.

]]>By: BillyJoe7http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/guilty-verdict-for-italian-earthquake-scientists/comment-page-2/#comment-46157
BillyJoe7Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:33:39 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4964#comment-46157Sonic,
The article quotes only one of the seven giving what I have characterised as a "take home" message after being prompted by the interviewer to provide one. Given what happened, and if he had his time again, he would probably not have done so, and simply stuck with the original statement.
Imagine a person who has never bought a lotto ticket. He finds a dollar in the street and decides he will buy one. As he fills in his numbers, he hears a statistician on the television explaining the remote odds of winning lotto. After being prompted by the interviewer, he ends with the take home message: don't buy lotto tickets. He tears up his ticket. On the weekend his numbers come up.
Do you think it's reasonable that the statistician be convicted of giving advice not based on statistics?
Do you think it is reasonable that the law will require him to pay that person one million dollars?Sonic,

The article quotes only one of the seven giving what I have characterised as a “take home” message after being prompted by the interviewer to provide one. Given what happened, and if he had his time again, he would probably not have done so, and simply stuck with the original statement.

Imagine a person who has never bought a lotto ticket. He finds a dollar in the street and decides he will buy one. As he fills in his numbers, he hears a statistician on the television explaining the remote odds of winning lotto. After being prompted by the interviewer, he ends with the take home message: don’t buy lotto tickets. He tears up his ticket. On the weekend his numbers come up.

Do you think it’s reasonable that the statistician be convicted of giving advice not based on statistics?
Do you think it is reasonable that the law will require him to pay that person one million dollars?

]]>By: ConspicuousCarlhttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/guilty-verdict-for-italian-earthquake-scientists/comment-page-2/#comment-46154
ConspicuousCarlTue, 30 Oct 2012 16:10:43 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4964#comment-46154<blockquote>sonic on 29 Oct 2012 at 9:03 am
ConspicuousCarl-
The example of the statement that got them in trouble was (paraphrasing)-
“No earthquake. Go home, drink wine!”
That is a specific recommendation- and not a scientific one.</blockquote>
I already explained clearly enough why that cherry-picked line is not likely to be a reasonable summary of the overall message they conveyed.

sonic on 29 Oct 2012 at 9:03 am

ConspicuousCarl-
The example of the statement that got them in trouble was (paraphrasing)-
“No earthquake. Go home, drink wine!”
That is a specific recommendation- and not a scientific one.

I already explained clearly enough why that cherry-picked line is not likely to be a reasonable summary of the overall message they conveyed.

]]>By: BillyJoe7http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/guilty-verdict-for-italian-earthquake-scientists/comment-page-2/#comment-46151
BillyJoe7Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:29:01 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4964#comment-46151Raylider,
I'm talking, not about MY resources, but America's resources.
And not just financial resources but time and manpower which are definitely limited. There is a limit to how many manhours that can be spent on any one human activity without other activities suffering from lack of resources. Money can't buy manhours that are not available.
If I have a headache and that headache is caused by a brain tumour and if that brain tumour is curable if picked up early with an MRI then, given my scenario above, America would need to spend ten billion dollars if my life is to be saved. I don't expect America to do that. I expect that they will follow the evidence and save thousands of lives with the same resources that would spend to save one life. After all, in all probability, my headache is not caused by a brain tumour, and if it is, chances a my life will not be saved anyway. I am much more likely to be amongst those thousands of others whose lives are saved by the application of science-based medicine.
A telling point is that nowhere in your post do you refer evidence or science-based medicine.
...except where you say science does not make decisions, people do. Of course. But people should use science to make decisions. That is my whole point.Raylider,

I’m talking, not about MY resources, but America’s resources.
And not just financial resources but time and manpower which are definitely limited. There is a limit to how many manhours that can be spent on any one human activity without other activities suffering from lack of resources. Money can’t buy manhours that are not available.

If I have a headache and that headache is caused by a brain tumour and if that brain tumour is curable if picked up early with an MRI then, given my scenario above, America would need to spend ten billion dollars if my life is to be saved. I don’t expect America to do that. I expect that they will follow the evidence and save thousands of lives with the same resources that would spend to save one life. After all, in all probability, my headache is not caused by a brain tumour, and if it is, chances a my life will not be saved anyway. I am much more likely to be amongst those thousands of others whose lives are saved by the application of science-based medicine.

A telling point is that nowhere in your post do you refer evidence or science-based medicine.
…except where you say science does not make decisions, people do. Of course. But people should use science to make decisions. That is my whole point.

]]>By: steve12http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/guilty-verdict-for-italian-earthquake-scientists/comment-page-2/#comment-46147
steve12Tue, 30 Oct 2012 02:31:22 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4964#comment-46147Newron said:
"The scientists in making this pronouncement were, in my opinion, acting non-scientfically, or outside the province of science. "
But they based their advice on the probabilities, so this is all nonsense.
Essentially, you're saying that it's OK to say "it's unlikely that the tremors portend to a bigger earthquake" but "scientism" to say "we recommend that you not evacuate because it's unlikely that the tremors portend to a bigger earthquake"?
This a meaningless distinction, and sounds like some sort of postmodern nonsense.
The scientists gave a recommendation based on probabilities - that's their job.Newron said:

“The scientists in making this pronouncement were, in my opinion, acting non-scientfically, or outside the province of science. ”

But they based their advice on the probabilities, so this is all nonsense.

Essentially, you’re saying that it’s OK to say “it’s unlikely that the tremors portend to a bigger earthquake” but “scientism” to say “we recommend that you not evacuate because it’s unlikely that the tremors portend to a bigger earthquake”?

This a meaningless distinction, and sounds like some sort of postmodern nonsense.

The scientists gave a recommendation based on probabilities – that’s their job.

]]>By: sonichttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/guilty-verdict-for-italian-earthquake-scientists/comment-page-2/#comment-46143
sonicMon, 29 Oct 2012 22:15:42 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4964#comment-46143BillyJoe7-
You are correct. I don't know why the judge did what he did. I have failed to read his mind.
With that said, if you read the link I provided, you will find the evidence that the judge did base his decision on the fact that the scientists gave this bad advice.
All I am actually assuming here is that the article is correct and that the judge did his job correctly.
I realize both of those things might be in error, but I have seen no evidence that would make me think so.
What evidence do you have that the judge misapplied Italian law? Which law are you thinking he misapplied, specifically? What evidence are you saying he overlooked? What part of the testimony are you saying has been misunderstood? Can you please give me the exact quotes?
Or should I just assume that the judge doesn't know his business?BillyJoe7-
You are correct. I don’t know why the judge did what he did. I have failed to read his mind.

With that said, if you read the link I provided, you will find the evidence that the judge did base his decision on the fact that the scientists gave this bad advice.

All I am actually assuming here is that the article is correct and that the judge did his job correctly.
I realize both of those things might be in error, but I have seen no evidence that would make me think so.

What evidence do you have that the judge misapplied Italian law? Which law are you thinking he misapplied, specifically? What evidence are you saying he overlooked? What part of the testimony are you saying has been misunderstood? Can you please give me the exact quotes?

Or should I just assume that the judge doesn’t know his business?

]]>By: rayliderhttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/guilty-verdict-for-italian-earthquake-scientists/comment-page-2/#comment-46140
rayliderMon, 29 Oct 2012 18:48:33 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4964#comment-46140BillyJoe,
Do you think Bill Gates would pay a billion to save his life?
The question is definitely worth asking. This is because you are not asked to spend $1 billion on saving your life, the MRI does not cost that much, the effective question is - is it worth it for you to spend $1000 on 1 millionth of your life? I suppose you'll say no, most people would say no - but who is it up to decide? Who do you entrust to make that decision? You say science - science does not place values on human life (which is why I asked you to find a study). Also, you cannot entrust science to make a decision - because science does not make decisions, articles and papers and equations do not make decisions. People do - and people are not infallible (though neither is science). So when you place "science" in charge of other people's life decisions, you are placing other people in charge of other people's life decisions. That may be OK when someone else's(public) resources are at stake, not when I want to spend my money, that I earned, any way that I want to. Also, your economics are off - yes, resources are limited and people who own those resources are in charge of their distribution. Using your logic, people that buy iPhones take engineers away from medical fields and cause people to die. That's not what happens. In fact, like I said before - if more people wanted to spend their own cash on medical resources - MORE resources would be diverted to medicine and MRIs and it would become CHEAPER. See: plastic surgery, LASIK eye surgery, etc (prices went down for those because people pay out of pocket for those). In fact, study the efficiency of use of resources for any field and you will see that efficiency of use of resources are greatest in fields with least government intervention. Why? Because promise of profit gives incentive for innovation. Creating deficits does not. In fact, profit means that an entreprenuer was able to use less resources than competitors to create the same problem.
Going back to your other questions - which are all valid questions, but for some reason asked from the wrong perspective. "If you do, is my life worth a billion dollars to you? If not, are you and the other 250 million Americans willing to give $4 each to save my life?" Certainly, your life is not worth a billion dollars to me (no offense - I don't know you). Which is precisely why no one is asking anyone else to pay for the MRI, the person is using his own resources.
"Or would you rather give that $4 to save the thousands of lives of patients who can be more cheaply and easily diagnosed and threated for their diseases?" I would rather do that - that would be my CHOICE. What you are doing is forcing that choice upon others, against their will. Remember it's not your billion dollars to decide what to do with and how to best spend it, it belongs to the one million people who would be getting the "unneeded" MRIs. But it is certainly valiant of you to take other people's money and spend it in ways you think are more efficient.
PS. science has no way of setting prices on anything. Price is by definition what someone is willing to sell something for.BillyJoe,

Do you think Bill Gates would pay a billion to save his life?
The question is definitely worth asking. This is because you are not asked to spend $1 billion on saving your life, the MRI does not cost that much, the effective question is – is it worth it for you to spend $1000 on 1 millionth of your life? I suppose you’ll say no, most people would say no – but who is it up to decide? Who do you entrust to make that decision? You say science – science does not place values on human life (which is why I asked you to find a study). Also, you cannot entrust science to make a decision – because science does not make decisions, articles and papers and equations do not make decisions. People do – and people are not infallible (though neither is science). So when you place “science” in charge of other people’s life decisions, you are placing other people in charge of other people’s life decisions. That may be OK when someone else’s(public) resources are at stake, not when I want to spend my money, that I earned, any way that I want to. Also, your economics are off – yes, resources are limited and people who own those resources are in charge of their distribution. Using your logic, people that buy iPhones take engineers away from medical fields and cause people to die. That’s not what happens. In fact, like I said before – if more people wanted to spend their own cash on medical resources – MORE resources would be diverted to medicine and MRIs and it would become CHEAPER. See: plastic surgery, LASIK eye surgery, etc (prices went down for those because people pay out of pocket for those). In fact, study the efficiency of use of resources for any field and you will see that efficiency of use of resources are greatest in fields with least government intervention. Why? Because promise of profit gives incentive for innovation. Creating deficits does not. In fact, profit means that an entreprenuer was able to use less resources than competitors to create the same problem.
Going back to your other questions – which are all valid questions, but for some reason asked from the wrong perspective. “If you do, is my life worth a billion dollars to you? If not, are you and the other 250 million Americans willing to give $4 each to save my life?” Certainly, your life is not worth a billion dollars to me (no offense – I don’t know you). Which is precisely why no one is asking anyone else to pay for the MRI, the person is using his own resources.
“Or would you rather give that $4 to save the thousands of lives of patients who can be more cheaply and easily diagnosed and threated for their diseases?” I would rather do that – that would be my CHOICE. What you are doing is forcing that choice upon others, against their will. Remember it’s not your billion dollars to decide what to do with and how to best spend it, it belongs to the one million people who would be getting the “unneeded” MRIs. But it is certainly valiant of you to take other people’s money and spend it in ways you think are more efficient.

PS. science has no way of setting prices on anything. Price is by definition what someone is willing to sell something for.

]]>By: BillyJoe7http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/guilty-verdict-for-italian-earthquake-scientists/comment-page-2/#comment-46137
BillyJoe7Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:12:48 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4964#comment-46137sonic,
"The example of the statement that got them in trouble was (paraphrasing)-
“No earthquake. Go home, drink wine!”"
The point is that YOU don't know that this is the reason they were found quilty.
You are just speculating without evidence.
CC has provided evidence that this was probably NOT the reason they were found quilty.
In other words, you have provided no evidence for your speculations and have now ignored contrary evidence. You are, guilty of making statements not grounded in the facts, the very thing you accuse those scientist of doing.
Really, sonic, the irony burns.sonic,

“The example of the statement that got them in trouble was (paraphrasing)-
“No earthquake. Go home, drink wine!””

The point is that YOU don’t know that this is the reason they were found quilty.
You are just speculating without evidence.
CC has provided evidence that this was probably NOT the reason they were found quilty.

In other words, you have provided no evidence for your speculations and have now ignored contrary evidence. You are, guilty of making statements not grounded in the facts, the very thing you accuse those scientist of doing.

Really, sonic, the irony burns.

]]>By: BillyJoe7http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/guilty-verdict-for-italian-earthquake-scientists/comment-page-2/#comment-46136
BillyJoe7Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:02:11 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4964#comment-46136skeplander,
I think I understand your viewpoint as well, but I find it hard to respect it.
<i>Everyone for themselves</i> is not even the law of the jungle.
The law of the jungle includes <i>reciprocal altruism</i> and <i>kin selection</i>.
I think we can do better than that.skeplander,

I think I understand your viewpoint as well, but I find it hard to respect it.

Everyone for themselves is not even the law of the jungle.
The law of the jungle includes reciprocal altruism and kin selection.
I think we can do better than that.